Terrible!

This is a positively horrible version of "Richard III". It's dry, witless, and I feel nothing for any of the characters. I found myself laughing and shaking my head in disbelief at almost the entire thing. This play is so much more than what they put into it! Richard is a fully formed, three-dimensional character, not the Snidely Whiplash portrayed in this horrid film. And please, what was up with Lady Anne? She's attracted to the man who just slew her husband and father? In the play, she's given some degree of reason, at least, but in this, she seems to have liked him all along. It doesn't go with the lines OR anyone's sensibilities. And Mistress Shore was just unnecessary.

Ian McKellen's version of Richard is at least closer to the mark. However, if anyone had the grand luck to have seen Kathryn Hunter's portrayal of Richard in Summer 2003 at the Globe in London, then they know how great Richard can be. The Royal Shakespeare Company did a far more than decent job, though it paled in comparison with the Globe's fine work.

I suppose someone's going to see this and wonder why I feel I can be so bold. For almost a year now, I have been drowning in research of Richard's life and times, the history and myth, traveling, going to the sites that he lived (and died) at, etc. While I don't consider myself the authority on the subject, I feel that I have some scope to speak on the matter. Yes, Olivier's supposedly this great actor. But instead of *living* the character and lines, he makes it too Shakespeare. Everyone acts in that archaic, stylistic way that so many "Shakespearean Actors" do, overacting and make it almost kabuki-like in the process. Shakespeare speaks the same language we do, he just uses more words in his sentences. I'd like to see a much better version of Richard done, one that serves the text well and also doesn't try to change it to their will. Maybe Olivier was great in his time, but his version has been growing mold for quite some time now.